Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 71

Thread: The Coming India-Russia Split

  1. #1
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202

    The Coming India-Russia Split

    Timely article, some think it will happen within the next two years

    The Coming India-Russia Split | The Diplomat | Jan 09 2018


    Shifting geopolitical dynamics, especially the rise of China, spell trouble for this long-standing relationship.
    By Dmitriy Frolovskiy
    January 09, 2018

    The Russian-Indian partnership has experienced an upward trend in the past years. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi enjoy cordial relations, meet regularly, hold telephone conversations, and seek ways to boost further bilateral trade. Although the official presentation of mutual ties seems cloudless, fundamental shifts are happening behind the curtains.

    The previous year was a breakthrough in bilateral relations for Moscow and New Delhi. Both nations experienced impressive 22 percent growth in trade and boosted cooperation in a number of spheres ranging from agriculture to energy to pharmaceuticals. Earlier, Russia’s largest oil producer, Rosneft, closed a $12.9 billion purchase of India’s second largest private oil refiner, Essar Oil, which marked one of the biggest foreign investment in India. New Delhi likewise was the major guest country of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in 2017, Russia’s top national event for international cooperation, and hosted the pavilion titled “Make in India” along with Modi’s participation in a plenary session next to Putin.

    The two countries likewise seek stronger ties in the military sector. The Kremlin keeps its competitive edge and remains the largest supplier of weapons to the Indian market. Both nations signed an inter-governmental agreement for the purchase of the S-400 Triumf advanced Air Defense Systems (NATO: SA-21 Growler) estimated at $4.5 billion. Moscow and New Delhi also agreed on the import of Kamov Ka 226T light utility helicopters and collaboration in manufacturing of four Admiral Grigorovich–class guided-missile stealth frigates. The previous calendar year was likewise marked by a rare feat: the Indian defense minister and national security advisor each visited Russia twice.

    Growing trade and new defense contracts combined with the personal friendship between Putin and Modi facilitate an impression of strategic bilateral relations. But shifting geopolitical dynamics driven by the rise of China, international sanctions against the Kremlin, and its never-ending economic stagnation point to imminent changes for India-Russia relations in the coming years.

    The Kremlin played a key role in facilitating New Delhi’s membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Moscow pushed forward India’s membership in order to dilute China’s dominance in the group. Its efforts likewise played vital role in maintaining the Russia-India-China trilateral format, during which the nations reconcile on a mutually shared vision and responsibility for the future of the Eurasian continent. The Kremlin also perceives such meetings as vital steps for pushing forward its ideological agenda of a multipolar world and challenging Western dominance, but India maintains a far more pragmatic vision.

    New Delhi has great capacity to effectively respond to structural and geopolitical shifts and is extremely skillful in learning to adjust to changing power dynamics. For instance, in 1971 India signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union to balance Sino-U.S. rapprochement. After the end of the Cold War, India was keen on joining the Moscow-led Eurasian movement and agreed to embrace institutional cooperation with Beijing. The impetus was to secure its geopolitical ambitions as well as resist Washington’s threats to roll back New Delhi’s nuclear goals and possible interventions in a regional dispute with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir.

    Currently the geopolitical realities in the region are changing again. Growing Chinese power and Indian ambitions mean that sooner or later both nations will start confronting each other more. The new setting prescribes the need to revise previous formats of interactions and seek diversification in foreign policy. Given Moscow’s weakness and growing dependence on Beijing, India will need to look for another strong player to maintain its geopolitical ambitions.

    Beijing is currently posing the biggest geopolitical threat to India. Both nations have a disputed border, which was highlighted during the recent standoff on the Doklam plateau in territory claimed by both China and Bhutan. China and India likewise compete for influence in the Asia-Pacific region and the Indian Ocean. With China’s current GDP four times larger and its defense spending almost three times bigger than that of India, the broken parity pushes New Delhi to seek for ways to counter its neighbor’s power.

    Sino-India relations have been deteriorating for the past decades, while U.S.-India relations have experienced improvement simultaneously. The White House supports New Delhi’s claim for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council and its entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group – moves that are opposed by Beijing. The United States likewise is more keen on supporting India’s pursuit for regional leadership in its opposition to China’s ambitions in South Asia and the Indian Ocean and has lots to offer in terms of trade and defense technologies. The latter is particularly appealing in lights of India’s quest to diversify its military suppliers.

    Washington’s previous support for Pakistan has posed a serious challenge to India’s geopolitical ambitions and the two nations’ relations. In effect, the Trump administration’s latest unexpected move to freeze aid to Pakistan could deliver positive vibes to India-U.S. relations. New Delhi has a lengthy record of accusing Islamabad of supporting cross-border terrorism, claims that might find support in Washington considering its own criticism of Pakistan’s poor efforts in combating terrorism.

    The Kremlin could still help New Delhi with some of its cutting-edge technologies and international diplomatic support, but India will ultimately keep shifting to the pro-Western orbit. Despite augmenting trade volumes, Russia’s exports to India are barely 2 percent of India’s total imports and in an economic sense, Russia’s struggling economy has little to offer to India in the long-term. The Kremlin’s growing political and economic dependence on Beijing ultimately means that the current momentum of Russia-India relations will be imminently challenged in the upcoming years.

    For New Delhi, the anticipated shift will necessitate rational support for its independent foreign policy, which aims to diversify political relations while nurturing the goal of keeping “India first.” The latter is proven by India’s participation in a November 2017 working-level meeting of the so-called “Quad” of countries along with Japan, the United States, and Australia to counter China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific. As a growing power, India needs to find its ways to improve its weight in the world order and it’s unlikely that its historically pro-independence foreign policy will make an exception for the Kremlin.

    Dmitriy Frolovskiy is a Moscow-based political analyst and writer.

  2. #2
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202
    655 views and not a single reply ?

    We're looking at S-400


  3. #3
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    777
    China Expands its Reach, Meets Little Resistance
    China Expands its Reach, Meets Little Resistance
    January 22, 2018 478
    By: John Elliott

    China is gradually moving to a position where it will play an increasingly dominant role in the world’s international affairs, disrupting established institutions and trade routes and building its own alternatives – and most of the rest of the world has little idea how to respond except to try to persuade it not to be too disruptive.

    That is a broad-brush take from the Raisina Dialogue, a high level two-day conference on Managing Disruptive Transitions that was held in Delhi last week by the Observer Research Foundation, one of India’s leading think tanks, with the country’s foreign ministry.

    In session after session, there was worry and consternation about the disruption caused both by China’s assumption that it can unilaterally claim authority over Asia’s sea lanes, and by its presence in the Indian Ocean and its spread of ports in the region and elsewhere

    “The Chinese already have a naval base in Djibouti and we’re aware of their base in Hambantota,” said Admiral Sunil Lanba, the Indian Navy’s chief of staff, referring to a Chinese naval base on the Horn of Africa and a port in Sri Lanka. “This is going to be the pattern for the future.”

    Belt and Road Cinches Other Economies

    There was also almost universal concern that China’s multi-billion dollar One Belt One Road (OBOR – also called Belt and Road Initiative, BRI) economic, trading, transport and pipeline infrastructure plan linking Asia and Europe is trampling on countries’ economies, institutions and security.

    The US and India have boycotted the OBOR, which was dubbed “one belt one trap” by Theresa Fallon of the Brussels-based Center for Russia Europe Studies. She cited the loss-making US$1.3 billion Hambantota port that was built with Chinese bank loans and opened in 2010 but has little business. Sri Lanka has been unable to repay the debt and last July had to sign the port over to Beijing on a 99-year lease, a move that has been seen by critics as an invasion of sovereignty. There are fears of similar China takeovers elsewhere on the OBOR.

    Vijay Gokhale, a senior Indian diplomat who becomes the country’s foreign secretary at the end of this month, pinpointed the worries. At the start of a session called Contested Connectivity he posed a series of questions that assumed negative answers: “Is the process demand-driven? Is the process consultative? Does the process allow for fair and open competition? Does the process build on multilateral frameworks that already exist, and is the process consonant with principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity?”.

    Gokhale advocated fair and open competition for construction contracts – a point that stems from China insisting that most of the OBOR work is carried out by Chinese companies, which restricts the benefit for the host countries.

    Infrastructure needed

    There was a hint that American private sector companies welcome the OBOR because of the increased trade that it will generate, filling a vast multi-billion dollar gap in infrastructure funding. Nisha Biswal, a former US State Department diplomat who now heads the US India Business Council (USIBC), said the question should be how all societies would benefit from increased connectivity “serving the interests of the many”.

    For India, the other key issue at the conference was cross-border terrorism from China’s ally Pakistan, which linked with general concern at the conference about growing terror worldwide. India’s external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj called terrorism “the mother of all disruptions.”

    Well-connected experts speculated whether President Donald Trump’s recent confrontational suspension of US aid and security assistance to Pakistan would worsen rather than curb the Pakistani army’s and intelligence service’s support for international terrorist organizations. China is stepping into the aid and power vacuum left by the US and some people hoped privately that it would restrain Pakistan because it would not want an escalation of terrorism from what India’s foreign secretary, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, neatly dubbed “ungoverned spaces.”

    There was plenty of experience, clout and brains at the conference, including navy chiefs (above) from the “Quad” countries – Japan, Australia, India and the US – that have formed a alternative (containment) grouping to China’s OBOR, plus army chiefs from India and the UK. Foreign, defence and security ministers and their deputies from Iran, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Singapore, the US and India mixed with a galaxy of ambassadors past and present.

    Then there were former leaders and officials, including former Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai, and retired US general David Petraeus. And of course there were think tankers galore populating the extended days – breakfast sessions started at 9am and night-caps “over kahwa” (Kashmiri tea) ran from 10.30 pm.

    As so often happens at such gatherings, the discussions were, for many people, an end in themselves. “I think we identified the issues well” was a typical refrain.

    “Congagement”

    None of this stellar roll call of international experts had any real solutions. When I put that at the end of the conference to Zalmay Khalilzad, a veteran former US ambassador, he advocated “congagement,” which he wrote about earlier this year. China should be “engaged” and encouraged to participate in existing institutions, laws and treaties. At the same time, countries concerned about China’s expansionism should try to “contain” its reach with fresh alliances and alignments. He acknowledged that the advent of China’s President Xi Jinping meant that the balance needed to be increasingly tilted towards containment.

    The gradualist engagement approach was implicitly condemned just as the conference ended by Trump’s administration, which criticized the terms on which America had supported China entering the World Trade Organization in 2001. Those terms had “proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-orientated trade regime.” Trump told Reuters earlier in the week that he was considering a big “fine” against Beijing for forcing US companies to transfer their intellectual property to China if they wanted to do business there.

    Some of the best sense was talked by visitors from two countries in China’s immediate arc of influence. Patti Djalal, a former Indonesian ambassador to the US and one of the most practical of the think-tanker speakers, said that China’s rise could not be checked, so it needed to be accommodated peacefully with the country being engaged strategically.

    That meant finding a way to present the US-Australia-Japan-India “Quad” not as a rival or adversarial response to China’s OBOR (which is what has been done), but as a co-operative connectivity plan

    Paucity of Ideas

    There was, said Djalal, a “paucity of ideas” about how to move to the next level on China. “Strategic ego” was a stumbling block – when China offered the OBOR, the US wouldn’t join in because joining would be accepting China’s leadership. “On one hand, we need regional architecture. On the other, major powers can’t make that strategic leap”.

    Australia’s navy chief, Vice Admiral Tim Barret, warned against a lack of direction and co-ordination: “There’s a plethora of fora. An emphasis on info-sharing. A multitude of exercises, most relatively simple”. But, he warned, “an abundance of arrangements, poorly managed or not aligned, produces dilution of practical outcomes.”

    India’s current and future foreign secretaries, both former ambassadors in Beijing, took a broader view and even saw some benefit in China’s rise. Jaishankar, who gives up the post at the end of this month, acknowledged: “We need to have a balanced view. Certainly, for India, in some ways China has been a motivator and an example.”

    But he warned that China’s emergence was not just that of another world power but of a “very different power” that was “challenging the international order.”

    Gokhale saw the 21st century as a “tipping point” in history with the re-emergence of India and China as the world’s globally large economies. Without mentioning China or the OBOR, he put them in a historical perspective, saying that connectivity had been a “hot topic” for centuries with the Roman Empire, the Suez Canal, and the sea routes of the Portuguese and Spanish all benefitting certain civilizations and countries.

    Finally, he asked rhetorically: “What is the rest of the world going to do to ensure that there is a certain rule setting, and that rule setting globally is not disrupted because any one country or any group of countries decides it has its own set of rules and then proceeds regardless.”

    He didn’t of course get an answer, but at least the questions had been asked.
    The power shift is with consent, partly because of social and cultural disillusionment with western power blocs.

    If india intends to contain china, it needs russias approval and participation. But the russians see an opportunity in chinas rise. In 2017, when china brought pakistan into SCO, russia did the same by bringing in india.

    With russia(and the rest of asia) accepting chinas order, india will eventually have to accept it also(which it already is, again, through russias approval).
    Last edited by anil; 27 Jan 18, at 09:25.

  4. #4
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202
    oh, i've become a fan of Dino Djalal. Here is he talking at Raisina. He is the only guy that actually has something meaningful to say compared to the admirals of India, US, Japan & Australia

    https://youtu.be/pXMH1sLrsKU

    Just scrub through to the parts where he talks and you will learn in addition to saying China can't be checked he also adds neither can India , US or Russia be checked for that matter either

    In another talk the question why can't BRI be globalised that is others joining in got no answer and the answer was provided by Dino. Strategic ego.

    The US or Japan or even India aren't interested because it implies they accept the China model. So Japan is slowly funding alternatives
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Jan 18, at 11:22.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    777
    lol

    Fund what alternative? haha

    China has a lot to offer to the world(both developed and under-developed). Chinas greatest skill is mass production which they've complemented with reverse-engineering as well as good local innovation. They've mobilized their citizens to operate like a single super-micro organism. There is no one on this planet that can match the economy of scales of that of china. No other state(culture) has that skill. There is no one who is investing in a mass distribution network as china.

    States around the developing world who previously never had the means to afford hardwares of modernization are now looking towards china because chinese manufacturing has made it affordable and within the reach of these worlds. Where do you think all the construction hardware that built the tall buildings in mumbai came from? It came from china!! Had mumbai developers acquired these hardware from european suppliers or the west, these projects would have never took off because of cost feasibility.

    This is the current reality. India needs china. South america needs china. Those states in south east asia who have a problem with china also need china. There is no one that can replace china - a 21st century robin hood for the developing world. If china ever collapses, the developing world is going to find itself eating shit again.
    Last edited by anil; 27 Jan 18, at 15:30.

  6. #6
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    Fund what alternative? haha
    Expanded Partnership for Quality Infrastructure Initiative, co-sponsored by Japan and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as an alternative to China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR). Japanese ODA has been going since 1954

    Does not have to match in amount, just offer better terms

    A good outcome would be alternative schemes compliment Chinese ones. No need to compete. Now you have choice.

    China has a lot to offer to the world(both developed and under-developed). Chinas greatest skill is mass production which they've complemented with reverse-engineering as well as good local innovation. They've mobilized their citizens to operate like a single super-micro organism. There is no one on this planet that can match the economy of scales of that of china. No other state(culture) has that skill. There is no one who is investing in a mass distribution network as china.
    yeah, what is their completion record. Promise x then how much arrives ? When i looked at a map of dams China planned in 2003 and how many actually got built it was quite a surprise.

    Theresa Fallon made an interesting point, just how desirable is Chinese investment ? really good question

    If it isn't transparent and comes with all sorts of catches. There isn't too much clarity here and looking at how some countries have fared means whoever gets into better do so knowing what they're getting into. Who benefits. Sure the Chinese companies that get the contract. What about the local companies. Bidding? how open. The Pak experience isn't looking very bright from that angle.

    Countries whose laws are weak are going to lose out unless they hard ball back.

    States around the developing world who previously never had the means to afford hardwares of modernization are now looking towards china because chinese manufacturing has made it affordable and within the reach of these worlds. Where do you think all the construction hardware that built the tall buildings in mumbai came from? It came from china!! Had mumbai developers acquired these hardware from european suppliers or the west, these projects would have never took off because of cost feasibility.

    This is the current reality. India needs china. South america needs china. Those states in south east asia who have a problem with china also need china. There is no one that can replace china - a 21st century robin hood for the developing world. If china ever collapses, the developing world is going to find itself eating shit again.
    How much more then does China need all of us ? or is this a one way street. We purposely run a deficit with them because it gives us the upper hand. China is never going to threaten us with a trade embargo ever.

    Does China share any responsibility for the last ten years of nonsense where nobody talks about peaceful rise any more.

    The idea was by allowing China access into the world's markets & economy it would open them up too. Why then is Trump saying letting China into the WTO in 2001 was the biggest mistake ?

    You know you could say there is a load of sour grapes going around right now. People are upset that they can't match China. Who said that. Why is everyone throwing in the towel

    We assume it will be all under one heaven. Everybody a tribute state. hah! really...

    Chinese got a lot done because they have a state capitalism model, can do marvelous things with that. The Americans went to the moon that way. Ten years ago the top 5 infrastructure companies weren't Chinese, today they are three times bigger than american ones. What happened. The Americans stopped building, the Chinese went on a splurge and have excess capacity and this is how they will be put to use. Should we too give them contracts in India. because we need them ? haha watch the sparks fly

    But the thinking has changed there since towards private capital. Look at all the tech firms, that are leaders today. Not one is state owned. Most are mega-corps residing mostly in the US. Those same firms get the door shut on them when they try to enter China or get run out. How is Indian pharma & IT doing in China ? many years ago i was told on this board that they are not competitive, utter garbage, tell that to google.

    Aren't we supposed to be talking about Russia in here ?

    Lavrov says India needs to pipe down and get with the BRI program ? hmm
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Jan 18, at 17:30.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    777
    If the japanese and the west are an alternative, please tell me where are the takers?
    Is someone stopping them from making business and trade proposals?

  8. #8
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    If the japanese and the west are an alternative, please tell me where are the takers?
    In 2014 Japan offered a $35 billion investment in infrastructure projects in India, with a $17 billion bullet train project being announced in 2017.

    And in December 2017, Japan announced that it will invest in infrastructure projects in Bangladesh, offering favorable financing terms to a friendly neighbor of India’s.

    http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/coo...progress1.html

    https://www.jica.go.jp/english/news/...170301_01.html

    ODA has been active in many countries for over half a century

    Don't forget the metro trains in Bangalore & Delhi were 50% funded by ODA. They'd have never been built otherwise

    The Americans used to do infrastructure abroad in the past, that kind of aid has slowed since. Trump wants to rebuild things, there will be overflow

    Otherwise infrastructure is mostly world bank funded these days. Along with other Asian infrastructure banks. You will be amazed how much comes that way. Any time you hear the term good governance you can be sure there is a world bank loan behind. Where is the controversy with Japanese & WB loans. Only people railing against WB are conspiracy mongers. This is known, just isn't hyped as much as anything to do with China these days

    Compare that to CPEC where half that country screams the Chinese are taking them to the cleaners. Chinese have been building a lot of dud projects, meaning ones with no possible chance of a return with the connivance of the local regimes.. This airport in Turkmenistan that gets no flights. Dictators like Chinese loans because they could care less what mess they leave the country in


    As for our commitments to other countries we are already $25-30bn up in total to various countries

    Is someone stopping them from making business and trade proposals?
    Don't follow ?
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Jan 18, at 19:22.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    777
    I don't agree with any of these "dud" arguments. Fundamentally, the argument is basic; what comes first - economic growth derived from infrastructure or vice versa. In the last 100 years, investers from the western orbit of influence have been careful in making global investments. Some influenced by profits. Some influenced by social and cultural (dis)similarities. Others by geopolitical and strategic situations(see game of balance).

    Globally, the needs of the developing world(the ones who got left behind) outweigh the needs of the developed world. The chinese understand this and have been able to exploit it to their advantage. Their ambitions go beyond business and into creating a new world order based around the developing world and the fair access to resources. The developed world understand what is happening both by observation and through instincts but are not able to do anything about it due to their own created handicaps I listed in the first para. There is also some fear among those asian states who have been(consciously or unconsciously) in the western orbit of influence(see TINA). This rise and the gradual shift of power is very confusing for them.

  10. #10
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202
    Disagree all you want but i did answer your questions to the point. Instead of the word alternative think choice. More choice benefits all and the primary driver of this choice is to reduce the likelihood of a China takes all outcome. The Chinese don't have to be matched $ for $. The mere presence of alternative terms puts pressure on them to improve theirs. Which if successful would be another positive outcome. So slowly their policy gets nudged into acceptable norms.

    The Chinese insist on fair access to resources but want to bottle up their near abroad. The irony of it.

    You are changing tack slightly here. China as the leader of the developing world. In 2008 it was proposed that Chinese voting rights at the IMF be brought up to a number commensurate with their standing. That is more than Belgium. It wasn't until 2016 that the US Congress finally made it happen. In the meantime China set up the AIDB and BRICS banks. India is the second largest shareholder in that bank. Some projects do not qualify for WB loans, think coal fired stations that before any infrastructure gets built will at least ensure the lights don't go out as often as they do. The bulk of CPEC, 80% is for power generation.

    I'd take a western orbit of influence any day over a Chinese one. It isn't as binary as it used to be. China treats their people like dirt why then would they make any exceptions for others. I'm not interested in a tribute system. All under one heaven. Trump gets slammed for expressing policy via tweet. Guess what, China has been expressing policy via op-ed for well over a decade now through their usual mouthpieces. China promotes the perception they are unstoppable, cannot be challenged. You buy that, its your business, but history shows many did just that too with attendant consequences.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Jan 18, at 18:06.

  11. #11
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    If india intends to contain china, it needs russias approval and participation. But the russians see an opportunity in chinas rise. In 2017, when china brought pakistan into SCO, russia did the same by bringing in india.

    With russia(and the rest of asia) accepting chinas order, india will eventually have to accept it also(which it already is, again, through russias approval).
    What is Russia going to be worth five to ten years from now. They are not making the right decisions internally to enhance their position in the future. Russia is big enough not to care what others think but not big enough to get on without others. US sanctions towards Russia apply in Asia as well. So they are getting squeezed. A Russia - India split, weakens Russia further which will accelerate China's position in the region. Russia withdraws to itself and goes isolationist. Since 2001, there have been 14 vetos by Russia at the UNSC, China had 6 and the US 2. Russian vetos are going for cheap

    Will there be a reckoning coming one day for Russia, the fall of Russia where what Russia thinks doesn't matter. That already happened during the 90s. Putin had to claw back some of that past prestige. But see what he has done, rode on the back of developments and played his cards well to Russia's benefit. Russia isn't the master of these events.

  12. #12
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Don't forget the metro trains in Bangalore & Delhi were 50% funded by ODA. They'd have never been built otherwise
    I missed the completion of that in Bangalore by what looks like a few months. I had to take rickshaws everywhere, until I figured out the lay of the land, at which point if time wasn't an issue (it almost never was), I started walking everywhere to hold onto my rupees. How is it working out?

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    777
    DE,

    The west-japan alternative dwarfs in size compared to Chinese investments. But there is another reason why I refused to entertain your "alternative" argument. If we blocked all Chinese imports today, it would have a massive impact on our industrial output. That's because most of our assembly lines and it's spare parts/maintenance come from China. In contrast, the Bangalore metro project is inconsequential.

    Back to the original subject of the thread, the rise of China effects not just us but everyone. Everyone else(Russia, Pakistan, srilanka, Myanmar, south east asia etc) see an opportunity in its rise. At the same time, all are equally vary of China. Most of them welcome the arrival of the Chinese global order but at the same time want India to act as a counter-check if China ever decides to become unfair. I understand you are strongly attached to the western order of things but maybe you need to consider re-evaluating your SWOT analysis.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    777
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    A Russia - India split, weakens Russia further which will accelerate China's position in the region
    Because of various reasons, the Russians are restricted from selling any game changing weapons to us. This was not an issue for us in the 80-90s. Another game changer is the localisation of suppliers.

    The Russians cannot bounce back unless they are willing to withdraw from the self-hurting ceasefire agreement they have got themselves into with the west.

    As I have already said here before, the Indians and Russians have never been at war in history. I don't see any split happening. If the Russians have difficulty in selling any real weapons to India, that is their choice and India understands why.

  15. #15
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    I missed the completion of that in Bangalore by what looks like a few months. I had to take rickshaws everywhere, until I figured out the lay of the land, at which point if time wasn't an issue (it almost never was), I started walking everywhere to hold onto my rupees. How is it working out?
    It's still on going. There are just two lines operational. Phase 1 green line completed recently. Ten years to complete

    Phase 2 is due to complete in 2022 (if we're lucky) and then there is Phase 3. Everybody wishes work began twenty years earlier.

    Bangalore sits on granite, once you get below fifty feet it makes drilling under ground more expensive. This is why underground car parking is almost non-existent. On top of that the govt has to take people to court because there are disputes on settlement.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Jan 18, at 12:04.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01 Dec 16,, 14:15
  2. Russia cancels wargames with India
    By commander in forum International Defense and Terrorism Topics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02 Jun 11,, 17:21
  3. India-Russia ties rejuvenated
    By KenMac in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Dec 08,, 12:24
  4. India May Split Fighter Buy Between MiG-35 and Western Fighter
    By outofshdw in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28 Feb 07,, 05:54
  5. India to acquire 400 more tanks from Russia
    By bull in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 30 Jul 05,, 17:00

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •